I’m probably a minority of folks, but at this point I’m flying on airlines with the fewest Boeing Max generation planes in their fleet. I also don’t really trust the FAA to properly regulate Boeing after years of a close relationship—the recent groundings are the bare minimum.
Once the elite got rotten they need to be ousted, and the workers don't care (why would they?) and most shareholders have a voters' dilemma of caring at all due to too low stakes.
The only ones that care and can do something is the government, congress etc. Boeing need to be split up and sold off, and the management fired. But I don't see that happening anytime soon.
The models with issues appear to be the older ones with retrofits. Perhaps there are failure vulnerabilities when mixing today's computer-reliant design into past institutional-knowledge-reliant human design.
In particular, deliveries were stopped for almost two full years from September 2020 to August 2022, with more issues found recently. The Charleston plant is considered the worse one compared to Everett.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boein...
https://www.heraldnet.com/business/last-everett-built-boeing...
It was also grounded for a period.
It's one of them, but not the only (and I'd argue not the most). The A350 beats it for me, plus, it doesn't have that pesky range issue that is causing Europe to Asia carriers to adopt the A350 (detours around Ukrainian and Russian air space).
My dream is to fly on an A380 one day.
In fact it might the only aircraft model that my wife knows by its designation, due to how good her experiences on it have been.
So far the 787 has been the nicest long distance plane I've flown in (though I never did get a chance to fly in a 747).
Also, what are your thoughts on the EASA and why they haven't banned the Max?
I find it hilarious how many people who mock people who "don't trust the experts" and "do their own research" suddenly engage in the same thing when it comes to other domains. Make no mistake: anti-Maxxers are kinfolk to anti-vaxxers, even if you don't want to admit it.
Whoops. They are the same.
If we'd seen more thalidomide babies, or if people were being harmed en masse by vaccines perhaps things would be more comparable. But they're not so they're not. Besides, the FAA is explicitly tasked with promoting the business interests of American companies while also promoting safety. That's quite different than the FDA, and a more reasonable comparison would be between the FDA and NTSB.
Your ending statement could hardly be further from the truth. There's no evidence that these groups of people are related.
There are people that state they'd rather drive than fly on a Max.
The worst that can happen is a statistically much higher likelihood of dying. On the other hand, if you don't take the vaccine, the worst that happens is Pfizer doesn't get your money.
Also, y'know, the whole increased risk of serious illness due to a lack of immune protection that would be granted by the vaccine.
If your aim is to improve your immunity to an infectious disease, the only alternative to vaccination that fulfills the same purpose is to catch the disease, which is definitely not safer. If you are so afraid of FDA corruption in favour of pharma companies (or of needles) that you choose to avoid improving your immunity altogether, you're still at risk of catching the disease anyway, which is clearly less safe than any purported risk of getting vaccinated (that is, unless you make huge changes in your lifestyle to avoid human contact).